From: "Steve Wrathell"
To: Judiciary at mail dot house dot gov, president at whitehouse dot gov
Cc: JSwofford at theacc dot org, JDelany at bigten dot org,
KLW at big12sports dot com, MTranghese at bigeast dot org,
BBBanowsky at C-USA dot org, RChryst at MAC-sports dot com,
BGilliland at theMWC dot com, KWhite at UND dot com,
THansen at pac10 dot org, MSlive at sec dot org,
Waters at Sunbelt-sports dot org, KBenson at WAC dot org
Subject: Bowl Championship Series, Congressional Hearings
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:17:47 +0000
Mr. Chairman and Committee members:
I operate 2 computer football rankings systems, CPA Rankings and CPA
Retrodiction Rankings, which rate teams for both the NCAA Division I
(I-A and I-AA) and for the NFL. The former system utilizes victory
margins and the latter does not and meets all stated requirements for
the Bowl Championship Series. I began rating teams in 1997.
Facts about the BCS. In every other sport, at top levels, there is a
playoff to determine the champion, except in NCAA I-A football. For
NCAA football there are 16-team playoffs for Divisions I-AA, II, and
III. It should be noted that playing in a 16-team playoff final
requires a team must play in 4 playoff games and that a few years ago,
the University of Massachusetts (I-AA) complained that their playoff
success was a substantial financial disaster for the school. I prefer
playoffs, but the bows system has some advantages, too. No matter what
the system is, it can be done in a way that equitably distributes funds
or in a way in which teams feel cheated.
In 1997, the year before the BCS, both Michigan (where I got my BA) and
Nebraska went into the bowls as the only 2 undefeated I-A schools. They
could not play each other because Big 10 and Pac 10 teams were committed
to the Rose Bowl and the other major conferences were in the Alliance
that allowed their top 2 teams to play each other. Michigan beat
Washington State and Nebraska beat Tennessee and U-M and U-N were each
voted #1 by one of the major polls, so the championship was split. The
BCS solved this issue and would have had Michigan and Nebraska play each
other had it existed in 1997.
The BCS went beyond the old Alliance and the pre-Alliance bowl selection
methods by creating the most fair system ever devised (which could still
stand substantial improvement) for selecting teams for its bowls.
Biased opinion polls alone would not be used. Polls would be combined
with objective computer rankings and other objective criteria to
determine the BCS Standings. Number 1 would play number 2. This is an
improvement over anything of the past. Note that in 1984, BYU (now in
the non-BCS Mountain West Conference) was the only undefeated team
entering the bowls and was ranked #1, despite playing a weak schedule.
It refused to play a highly-rated team for its bowl game, and chose to
play Michigan, which was 6-5 going into that game. BYU won by just 7
points and was crowned National Champion. Had the BCS existed then, BYU
would have been forced to defend its #1 status against the #2 team. In
1981, Clemson was undefeated and ranked #1, but played a weak schedule.
Yet it chose to take on a highly-rated Nebraska team for its bowl.
Clemson won the game and its #1 status was considered tested and
legitimate.
Of course, the "BCS teams" include members of 6 conferences, the ACC,
Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac 10, SEC, and Notre Dame. Non-BCS teams
are members of the Conf-USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, WAC, and
other I-A independents. I can assure you that the differences in the
quality of the BCS teams, as a whole is well above that of the non-BCS
teams as a whole. I can assure you that the quality of the BCS leagues'
champions is above that of the non-BCS leagues' champions. However,
when, last year, the Big 10 had 2 teams among the 8 in BCS games, their
profits were shared with all 11 of the Big 10's members. That Ohio
State and Iowa were better than Colorado State (MtnW), Marshall (MAC),
Boise State (WAC), etc. is not in doubt. However the last few teams I
mentioned were better than Michigan State, Indiana, and Northwestern,
etc., which got nice slices of the BCS bowl money. Is that fair?
Instead of focusing on only the 4 BCS bowls, one might want to also
consider the other 24 bowls, too. There has been unfairness in who gets
into those bowls, too. Non-BCS schools have complained that most of the
bowls are already committed to having only BCS-league teams in their
bowls. Until recently, there could be only one team from the MAC
getting into any bowl and my computer ratings have shown the #2 MAC team
being rated much higher than some teams that got into bowls when that #2
MAC team sat at home. Last season, South Florida, an independent, then,
had a 9-2 record, beat teams that made it to bowls, but was denied
admission to any bowl, while 7-5 teams with weaker schedule played in
their place. South Florida is now in the Conference USA, so it now has
a chance to get into a bowl. I believe that if there are to be 56 teams
in the bowls, then there should first be an objective and fair
determination as to which 56 teams deserve to be there and the bowls can
select teams from that pool. Now, of course, there has been a
requirement of having a winning record, which was relaxed to allow the
weak Sunbelt Conference to get its champion into a bowl, but I believe
this should be further modified to also use quality, objective computer
rankings to additionally sort this out.
I feel 2 "simple" things could be done to solve the BCS issues that
would not affect the basics of the bowl system, and yet substantially
change the economics of the bowls. 1) The 8 BCS bowl spots are not
enough to accommodate the 11 conferences and the independents. The BCS
should be expanded to include 4 more bowls, for a total of 8 bowls and
16 teams. There should be 4 spots reserved for champions of conferences
that are not now in the BCS, as long as they finish in the top 25 of the
BCS Standings. Added bowls could include the Cotton, Gator, and Capitol
One Bowls, and one other. 2) Regardless of who is in the bowls, there
should be profit sharing across Division I-A for ALL bowls (note that
there are 28 bowl games in total, in I-A). I do feel, though that teams
that play in the bowls should get a little more than non-bowl teams, to
cover expenses. In the problem I mentioned above regarding U-Mass,
their problem in playing 4 playoff games was that they incurred travel
and other costs for those games, but split the revenues evenly with
their conference members.
Another issue with the BCS that should be discussed is TV. Are you
concerned with monopolies? How's this?: of the 28 bowl games, this
season and last, 25 are broadcast by ABC or ABC-owned stations (ESPN and
ESPN2). One game each is broadcast by CBS, NBC, and Fox (the Sun,
Gator, and Cotton Bowls, respectively). ABC controls ALL 4 of the BCS
bowls, too! How much control does ABC have over the entire BCS process?
I wish to note that government-run schools make up most of Division I-A
schools. Usually, there are certain rules by which the state (and
federal) governments live by, including disclosure and fairness. Yet,
while the BCS standings cover 117 Division I-A teams, these standings
are disclosed publicly for only the top 15 teams and the rest of the
information is kept hidden. Errors in the BCS calculations and issues
in the calculations had been discovered by Jerry Palm, who had published
the 1-117 calculations as he determined them to be, under the BCS rules.
Note that if the NCAA Division I-A were run like a professional sports
league, the teams would probably be divided into several,
relatively-evenly sized divisions of relatively even strength. Teams
from the strong SEC would be blended with the weaker teams in that
region from the CUSA and Sunbelt conferences. The 117 teams could be
divided into 16 conferences (divisions) of 7 or 8 teams each. Toledo
would be in the same conference as Ohio State, San Diego State would be
in the same league as UCLA, etc. The rich would no longer be segregated
from the poor. Schedule strengths would be much more comparable. And
16 divisions/conferences would be an ideal number for a playoff system.
Note also that ALL of American college and pro sports, except for the
NFL are having severe economic problems due to the struggle between
teams that are in strong markets and those that are not. Bob Costas and
George Will have testified before Congress about this, regarding
baseball. The NFL has no such problems. All of its teams make money.
Why? The NFL agrees with the Costas/Will concept: it takes 2 teams to
play a game. NFL teams split the gate and TV revenues evenly. The home
team gets 100% of only the concession and parking revenues. Thus New
York teams and Seattle teams are comparable financially in the NFL and
it is reflected on the field. No NFL team can now dominate year after
year. The St. Louis Rams were 4-12 in 1998 and, in 1999, won the Super
Bowl.
Another issue, which will be a MAJOR issue if there is to be revenue
sharing between the current BCS schools and the others in I-A is who
should be in I-A? Some of the large schools are already trying to
shrink I-A by increasing attendance requirements. About half of the MAC
(Mid-America Conference) teams are at risk of being kicked down to I-AA.
Meanwhile, I-A has been expanding. In 1998, there were 112 teams. In
2004, Florida A&M will play a I-A schedule, bringing the Division up to
118 teams. Yet, some people in the large schools would prefer a
Division of around 80 schools. In 2003, Divisions I-A and I-AA are now
roughly divided evenly. Counting Florida A&M as I-AA and including
transitionals Cal-Davis and Northern Colorado (moving from Division II)
as I-AA teams, there are 117 teams in I-A and 123 in I-AA.
Another issue, which is closest to my heart is which computer systems
are in the BCS. The first 3 systems in the BCS had major newspaper
ties: the NY Times, Seattle Times, and Jeff Sagarin (USA Today)
systems. Then, the computer systems were expanded to eight, and a
stated criterion was that the systems had to be in operation for at
least 5 years (I was just short of that at that time). Later, there was
political backlash against computer systems that used victory margins,
so some changes were made, and some of the involved systems changed or
their creators established an additional system that did not use victory
margins. Then, all victory margin systems were banished and the systems
of Herman Matthews, Dunkel, and the NY Times were removed and were
replaced. Later, the NY Times was brought back after it had an untested
non-victory-margin system. Whether or not one agrees with victory
margins in computer rankings, the question remains: which systems
should be used. I have published studies on the accuracy of computer
rankings and John Wobus has continued with a methodology similar to
mine, but with an even broader scope. One will note that the NY Times'
system always rates at the bottom. Those measurements rated predictive
accuracy, which disfavors non-victory-margin systems. The most accurate
system for measuring systems on non-victory-margin accuracy is
maintained by Kenneth Massey (who has a system in the BCS). Each week,
he calculates each systems' "Ranking Violation %." If a system had a
Zero rating, then in no instance does it rate a team below a team it
beat. It is impossible to be at zero at the end of the season, since
bad teams do beat better teams. But the best non-victory-margin systems
can be measured this way (and victory-margin systems can also be
measured this way too.) The following was on my web site at the end of
last season:
-----------------------------
RANKING VIOLATIONS - BCS & CPA SYSTEMS COMPARED
CPA Retrodiction and BCS Systems' Ranking Violations (As determined by
Kenneth Massey. See the CF Rkg Comparisons, linked at my description
page.) Massey's codes are used. 108 means 10.8% (etc.) of the time, a
system ranks one team ahead of a team that beat it. Lower numbers are
better. This is a retrodictive, not a predictive, measurement.
Division I-A: (recent results by weeks ended...)
Sys N 09 N 16 N 23 N 30 D 07 Final Avg.
CPR 99 138 135 146 144 126 131.3
WOL 127 146 157 149 144 156 146.5
MB 129 141 155 154 150 164 148.8
SE 134 138 160 154 153 160 149.8
COL 149 150 154 149 149 167 153.0
AND 144 151 154 158 152 171 155.0
BIL 138 155 180 181 180 165 166.5
NYT 149 167 172 193 187 198 177.7
Division I-AA: (recent results by weeks ended...)
Sys N 09 N 16 N 23 N 30 D 07 Final Avg.
CPR 134 172 153 174 182 159 162.3
SE 151 165 175 189 186 184 175.0
MB 165 181 180 187 184 186 180.5
WOL 167 174 186 187 189 184 181.2
Of 81 I-A systems on Massey's Comparison, 76 listed all 117 teams.
Of those, NYT beat 7 systems (mostly or all predictive) and 73
systems beat NYT for ranking violation. The worst and third
worst RV's were 340 and 271, by USA and AP (the polls), respectively.
RANKING VIOLATIONS - THE BEST SYSTEMS FOR 2002
Division I-A, Final (Post-bowl) Top 5 - All Systems
Rnk RV Code System Name
1 126 CPR CPA RETRODICTION RANKINGS
2 132 MCK McCormick / GACFF
3 141 CPA CPA RANKINGS
4 156 WOL Wolfe (BCS)
5 157 BIH Bihl Rankings
Division I-AA, Final (Post-playoffs) Top 5 - All Systems
Rnk RV Code System Name
1 159 CPR CPA RETRODICTION RANKINGS
2 176 WIL Wilson Performance
3T 184 SE Sagarin-Elo (BCS)
3T 184 WOL Wolfe (BCS)
3T 184 CSL CSL Ratings (Loest)
Note: I'm not sure, but I think this is the first time since Kenneth
Massey has published the RV's that the same system has been #1 for
both I-A and I-AA. CPA Retrodiction: #1 in I-A and I-AA for R.V.!
---------------------------------
Massey's Comparison is at:
http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare.htm
http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm
If the computer systems were chosen for the BCS based on quality alone,
one of my systems would be among them and the NY Times and Seattle Times
systems would not. The selection process is made behind closed doors in
secret meetings without objective criteria. This isn't how it should be
done in an organization made up of primarily state-owned colleges.
It should also be noted that while the BCS bowls generate tens of
millions of dollars, the operators of the computer systems that help
determine the teams get paid ZERO, NOTHING, ZIP, NADA, for their
efforts. Yet the BCS pays another entity $100,000 per year to do some
of the computations for the BCS standings. Some of the computer raters
get paid by newspapers, but some do it for absolutely no economic
benefit. Is this right?
Should objective computer rankings be ignored and should bowl selection
be based on subjective polls or by small secret committees? Read my
essay: "Why Computer Rankings are Better than Polls
http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/rate/wrathell3.txt
Do I know anything about football rankings? Take a look at this info
from my web site:
AWARDS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
The CPA Rankings computer football rating system won several of Todd
Beck's
Prediction Tracker Awards (and honorable mentions) in several
categories,
predictive and retrodictive, for both the NCAA I-A and the NFL.
2002 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - BEST OVERALL RETRODICTIVE SYSTEM
2002 NCAA IA - 2nd Place - Most Retrodictive Wins
2002 NCAA IA - 2nd Place - Best Retrodictive Mean Absolute Error
2002 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Best Retrodictive Mean Square Error
2002 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Smallest Retrodictive Bias
2002 N F L - Co-Winner - Best Straight Up Winners, Second Half
2002 N F L - 2nd Place - Smallest Bias, Second Half
2002 N F L - 2nd Place - Best Overall Retrodictive System
2001 NCAA IA - Hon.Mentn.- Smallest Bias, Entire Season
2001 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - BEST OVERALL RETRODICTIVE SYSTEM
2001 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Most Retrodictive Wins
2001 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Best Retrodictive Mean Square Error
2001 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Smallest Retrodictive Bias
2001 N F L - WINNER!!! - BEST OVERALL PREDICTIVE SYSTEM
2001 N F L - WINNER!!! - Best Against the Spread, Entire Season
2001 N F L - WINNER!!! - BEST OVERALL RETRODICTIVE SYSTEM
2001 N F L - 2nd Place - Best Retrodictive Mean Absolute Error
2001 N F L - 2nd Place - Best Retrodictive Mean Square Error
2000 NCAA IA - Co-Winner - BEST OVERALL SYSTEM (Pred. & Retrod.)
2000 NCAA IA - 2nd Place - Best Mean Absolute Error, Entire Season
2000 NCAA IA - 2nd Place - Best Mean Absolute Error, Second Half
2000 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - BEST OVERALL RETRODICTIVE SYSTEM
2000 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Most Retrodictive Wins
2000 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Best Retrodictive Mean Absolute Error
2000 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Best Retrodictive Mean Square Error
2000 NCAA IA - WINNER!!! - Smallest Retrodictive Bias
2000 N F L - WINNER!!! - Best Straight Up Winners, Entire Season
2000 N F L - WINNER!!! - BEST OVERALL RETRODICTIVE SYSTEM
2000 N F L - WINNER!!! - Most Retrodictive Wins
Note that CPA Retrodiction had the highest win % in the NFL in 2001, but
did not win a P.T. Award, since it began at mid-season.
No other system has won as many P.T. Awards.
http://tbeck.freeshell.org/">
PRESEASON ACCURACY:
Chris Stassen's calculations of the most accurate web sites and
magazines for NCAA conference prediction accuracy is online.
Results: OK, so I was only 3rd for 2002, but for the last 3 years:
3-yr Magazine / Web Site 3-yr
1 CPA Rankings ------ 420 CPA Rkgs was #1 in 2000.
2 Lindy's ----------- 429
3 Phil Steele's ----- 431 Steele was #1 in 2001.
4T Jim Feist's ------- 439
4T The Sporting News - 439 TSN was #1 in 2002.
6 Athlon ------------ 440
Lower numbers are better. (c) 2003 Chris Stassen
For the complete chart and much more info, to go:
http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/2003-3yr.html
CPA Rankings is one of the components of the Gridiron Power Index (GPI),
which is a BCS-style ranking method for I-AA teams.
http://i-aa.org/section_front.asp?arttypeid=564
Thank you for reading thru my information. May God grant you wisdom
in the handling of these and other matters.
Sincerely,
Steven Wrathell, CPA
President, Steven Wrathell, CPA, PC
CPA Rankings / CPA Retrodiction Rankings
http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/rate/wrathell.html
BA - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1982
MSPA - Walsh College, Troy, MI, 1985
P.S. The US Constitution can be amended only thru the Constitutional
amendment procedures and not by the Supreme Court or by any judge,
contrary to current practice. Hasn't anyone ever read the Federalist
Papers, etc.? Thomas Jefferson was greatly upset by the Marbury v
Madison decision. How do you think he and James Madison would react to
some of the recent Supreme Court decisions? When is Congress going to
do something to defend the WRITTEN Constitution?